Congress

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:31:04 GMT

That's right Fred B. The biggest story on the congressional beat should be that the GOP minority has managed to stymie everything the public wanted in the '06 election. Be proud of it now, if the electorate catches on the Republican party will be destroyed for years to come.

Congress

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:57:01 GMT

Michael Moore, LOL. Now there is a spokesman for health care LOL. I read or heard a lot of stories over the weekend about people in Canada having to come over here because socialized medicine was so bad in Canada. People in England that have to wait for months for even a consultation with a doctor. Maybe things aren't peaches and cream right now, but to look at the other programs that goverment has screwed up, this is just another big problem coming up. I say let the democrats put their health care plans. When things go south, they will be torn to pieces and the GOP will be back in power.

Congress

IMPEACH — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:08:36 GMT

More important than who runs or is elected President, is who controls Congress.
I will work and support the DNC and Move On and all others to elect Democrats to any and ALL House and Senate seats. We will target ALL repugs, the good, bad, and the ugly!

Congress

Alan in Phx — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:20:39 GMT

The WH is right on this one as the Dems want to change the definition of children to include adult children up to age 25. Also to include children of families up to 200% of th fed. poverty designation which takes that to 80+k.

This truly distorts the orgional mission and wastes resources both personel and monetary. Again tose who need it the most will get shafted.

Again a Democrat feel good proposal that lacks any ecconomic sanity.

Remember all you program loving people that it is the taxpayers money, your money, my money that they spend like no tomorow. Being robbed by a criminal or the government is the same thing.

Congress

Clyde Barrow, Chicago Illinois — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:31:28 GMT

>> GOP minority has managed to stymie everything the public wanted in the '06 election.

Other then Iraq, what did the public want?

Plus, this is where negotiating skills and compromise of the slim majority in both houses becomes effective. We can see the skill set that Reid and Pelosi possess in these areas.

Congress

rick,ky — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:58:36 GMT

30% of the electorate may care what fred barnes think's or says. Enough said! Hey fred, here's one for ya " DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

Congress

nuanced — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:27:55 GMT

Interesting use of the word Effective. The Republicans have been effective at making the congress ineffective and so Fred Barnes gives them kudos. I hate to have him working at the FDA passing on the effectiveness of drugs.

Congress

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:36:04 GMT

To Repeat; National Health Care is already decided. The major US corporations have told Congress they will not continue to provide employee health care. They cannot compete against the international corporations from countries that have it. Not too long ago I read where Ford choose to build a new model in Canada due to the lower costs associated with Canada's National Health Care.
These corporation told Congress the same thing on pensions years ago. Hence 401K plans and no pension plans. How's your pension plan doing?
After all you don't really think you the people decide these things do you?

Congress

Bruce St. Helens, OR — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:52:32 GMT

Jerry, you can't remember if 'over the weekend' you read or heard that Candaians were coming to the US for health care? 'Over the weekend' was yesterday.

Congress

Desmond — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:56:52 GMT

Sunday July 22,2007

The National Governor's association at its annual meeting in Traverse City, Michigan declared that "urgent action is needed" to bolster the children's health program. "Defaulting to a series of temporary extensions of the program would be untenable for states and the millions of children who rely on the program." the governors said in letters sent to President Bush and Congress.

Congress

Stacy Bearns, Columbus, OH — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:06:00 GMT

nuisance writes: "The Republicans have been effective at making the congress ineffective"

What is an opposition party supposed to do?

Pelosi only needs a majority to pass any bill, and she has a fairly decent majority.

The real failure is with Reid. He has a thin majority, but there are some real liberal Republicans Senators he has failed to leverage. Hagel, Specter, Collins, one of my Senators-Voinovich, Craig, Grahm, and Snowe come to mind. It wouldn't take much for Reid to move slightly right from his far left positions to collect these votes for his side. You get up around 58-59 votes, now you have a lot a pressure on the Republicans to not filibuster.

But, Reid won't budge.

Congress

CYNICAL VOTER — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:18:15 GMT

OutWest...You are so right, we have so little control over big biz running our country.
It is because business does not want to pay health care that we will go to a National Health Care system. IT WILL NOT BE FREE. It worries me when I hear the stupid remarks about FREE health care. Not!
Nothing is free we all pay. Insurance co suck off all of us. Medicare plan for Sr. drugs a ripoff of gigantic proportions!
No pensions , all 401K's at your own peril, invested with BIG BIZ!

So people do more than piss and moan.

You are being had by

all the corporations even the so called faith based co's that are ripping us off. Everyone has only the bottom line in mind and how to take as much as they can from as many as they can as fast as they can.

Congress

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:25:18 GMT

The Administration that shipped literally tons of hundred-dollar bills to Iraq, and then promptly lost them, says letting kids get health care is spending too much?!? His Compassionate Conservatism apparently only shows compassion to corrupt Iraqi (and, possible, American) shady dealers in Iraq...but not for American kids!

Congress

leon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:29:21 GMT

Last I checked it was tax payer money funding the Iraq war( just imagine how much good use that money could have been put to in those programs [especially the haliburton waste.) In reality, please remember this is borrowed money so our children's children will still be paying for it, so much for oil revenue will pay for the whole operation. Remember that?

Medicare for all would be the perfect solution to the health care problems we face in this nation.For the people that do not understand this then pray to God you never get REALLY sick and experience the mountain of bills first hand.(I have). Then imagine your surprise when your insurance company says yes you did have a max. outpay of 3000, but that is just on what we(the company) thinks should go toward that limit. So here's your bill for 18000. They are free to disallow any thing they choose. Yea, privatization is really great. Living the nightmare.

Congress

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:51:51 GMT

That's odd, Jerry, the family in England we've known for over 10 years has never had to wait months for a routine visit. Emergency care has been immediate and thorough. And they've never had to pay large sums of money out of pocket for care they thought was covered. Wish I could say the same for my own family here in the States. Try listening to the real world instead of Michael Savage.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:02:49 GMT

>>>> Then imagine your surprise when your insurance company says yes you did have a max. outpay of 3000, but that is just on what we(the company) thinks should go toward that limit. So here's your bill for 18000.

Good lesson.

It is everyones responsibility to know how well they are covered before something happens. Then, if you feel it is inadequate, you can make the appropriate adjustments.

Congress

H P Boston — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:13:57 GMT

Yes leon, I think the answer is the Medicare system. The insurance companies are working hard to lobby againt it. They have the money and the clout with this corupt admin to fight it all the way.
Insurace companies and drug companies our enemy, our health care is disgrace. All for profit and expensive without value!

Congress

HP BOSTON — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:19:39 GMT

YES and your new monthly premium is $800. and your co-pay is $25 PER VISIT AND EA. PROCEDURE HAS A $500
DETUCTIBLE. AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADJUST (FINE PRINT).COULD BE AS MUCH AS $1000.00
BUT OF COURSE LISAH.

Congress

Ollie, frenchburg ky — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:43:51 GMT

Expanding health insurance for low income children?

Does anyone acually beleive that Bush and his white house disciples could possibly be for that? He supports insurance companies and big drug companies. Help the poor??? That would go against his entire plan. He will support this after his original plan to end the middle class is complete. Another reason he uses against this plan is that he doesn't want health care ran by the government. He really wants it ran by private big business. Now everything else he wants ran by himself, the Decider!! I am really concerned about where this country is headed.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:02:31 GMT

Anyone paying $800 a month is paying full family rate for insurance, i.e., no company benefit what so ever.

Shop around. If you find it too expensive, then consider just catastrophic insurance.

Once again, if you don't know how to read and understand the terms of your insurance, find someone that can. If you expect the government to provide health care, you can expect that it too will read like our current tax code, so having someone to help you interpret it will be beneficial to you.

Even with its faults, we have the greatest health care system in the world. Having the government manage it would take all the R&D incentives away, then all of those miracle cures and treatments we see the drug and hospitals develop today would no longer occur. The insurance companies also benefit us. To maximize their profits, it benefits them that their clients are healthy. They push the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to become better at what they do to make sure that this happens.

An incentive based health care system is the only way to provide medical treatment.

Congress

leon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:03:36 GMT

Thanks for the assist H P. Some people just don't get it. We had to find a separate policy for our child because my company(that I have no choice in choosing) wanted 755 dollars per month for premiums. And believe it is lousy insurance.What decision, insurance or eating. Keep on talking about personal responsibility until you wind up with 250,000 in medical bills from people you never even heard of. I've lived the experience and I fight for universal health care to ensure that you folks don't live my nightmares.

Congress

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:31:19 GMT

John B--then they need more doctors and better insurance in Iowa.

Congress

Blue state baby — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:44:13 GMT

Lisha writes..even with its faults, we have the greatest health care system in the world. Tell that to the 47,000 that don't have it. Tell that to people like Leon. Tell that to the poor who get emergency service, but nothing else to follow up.

Congress

Jim, Washington, D.C. — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:47:06 GMT

That's right, just make a few adjustments, shop around...if, that is, you have any MONEY to shop around with. And if you don't? As Scrooge might say, "Are there no prisons? Are there no poor houses or work farms?" Bush and his boss Cheney get Gummint health insurance, asdoes Congress, for which we pay big in taxes. That's American wholesomeness, and having regular people get health insurance they need is Socialism? We're only Big Gummint Socialists for the politicans whose salaries, perks and insurance we pay for.

Congress

Ollie frenchburg ky — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:20:51 GMT

Blue state baby, I beleive that is 47 million.

Congress

Buzz — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:41:26 GMT

Bruce, St Helen's- Jerry only understands 'over the rainbow'. I can't wait to see Clinton(s) in the white house again, if for no other reason than to watch him jump out a window. (probably be a basement window, though....)

Congress

H P Boston — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:51:47 GMT

YUP you can tell LISHA is copying off the propaganda sheet...lol. Same crap is spouted all the time.
Bottom line is , it is a great country America, it has the best of EVERYTHING! YOU JUST NEED MONEY TO HAVE THE BEST, OR EVEN just enough.....

Congress

Lisha Washington — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:52:04 GMT

So you are saying we should redo the entire health care system because it doesn't work for 12% of the population.

Do you also rebuild your house when the front door is stuck?

Congress

H P Boston — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:10 GMT

NO LISHA.. There is no door , there is no house...
Worst of all there is no system! Broken, caput, nada.
Cost too much , keeps costing more, getting less.
We can opt for the existing Medicare system and include EVERYBODY!

Congress

Dale, Denver — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:12 GMT

None of the kids covered by SCHIP are mine; I didn't have them; they aren't my responsibility.

Congress

H P Boston — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:18:32 GMT

Okay Dale I know you didn't start the war in Iraq either. Not your war not your responsibility, but dam you are paying for it. So why not throw in a little for the kids too. That would be great, thanks.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:36:35 GMT

Worst of all there is no system! Broken, caput, nada

Nonsense.

Go into any hospital or clinic. You'll get cared for.

Congress

Dale, Denver — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:43:22 GMT

No, H P Boston, as I said . . . Not. My. Responsibility.

Congress

jerry/corpus christi texaa — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:57:08 GMT

Just what exactly is Hillary's so called Health plan? I need someone to explain that to me in here, if anybody can.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:07:55 GMT

Dale,
You're flat wrong. To be a member of a society requires taking on the responsibility of helping those less advantaged than you. One should look at the betterment of the group as a whole not, I got mine so screw you. This administration spends nearly a trillion dollars destroying and killing a society but can't provide universal healthcare for their own? I guess I just don't get it. HP keep up the good fight...even if the effort generates ignorant replies from the uneducated masses of idiots that think life in the US is just great.

Congress

leon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:44:13 GMT

Okay Lisha,
true story: A neighbor of mine has no insurance, experiences chest pain and goes to a houston area emergency room. Following so far? After a 6 hour wait, they bring him in conduct a series of tests and diagnose angina. He did not even spend the entire night but most of it. A week later or so he receives a bill for 35000 dollars(please understand not 3500 but 35000 dollars)
Now please bear in mind that this was not even a surgery or followup care which he got known of. This man was born American, is not a criminal just a lower working class guy. He cried as he told me there was no way he could pay a bill like this. He would not have gone he said but he really thought he was dying. The very poor may be taken care of, the wealthy are always taken care of but the ever decreasing middle class has no help out there. Mexico, Canada, England and most others pay a fraction for meds we do here. Why should pharmacuticals even advertise, these are prescriptions only. They advertise so you can pressure your dr. for their meds.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:56:04 GMT

Lisha Washington (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 4:36 PM)

First of all - not true. Here in Texas you pay up front or provide proof of insurance. Without both of those you will not receive service. The only exceptions are life threatening cases and child birth.

Secondly - in places where you are cared for, SOMEONE pays for it if not the patient. Who do you think that is? YOU - via your tax dollars. If we provide some kind of insurance or affordable health care, perhaps these cases will be prevented by better "well" visits and early detections rather than waiting until an emergency room is required.

This is an economic problem - regardless of your issues on worthiness and "everyone is on his own" or, as Dale says "not my problem". You'll pay for it one way or the other. I'd like to limit the costs by having a system in place that allows, especially for children, early and wellness examinations and treatments.

Congress

Dale, Denver — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:24:52 GMT

Ken Mesle, it's interesting you think you know me well enough after I make two comments to call me an "ignorant ... uneducated ... idiot." I am none of those things. I am, however, someone who has worked hard to make something of myself. If I bought a car I can't afford, I don't ask anyone else to cover the costs of maintaining it. If I have kids I can't afford, I ought not ask others to bear the costs of maintaining them. And yet, everyone goes all mushy when it's "for the children" as though someone else's decision to bring a life into the world for which they can't provide creates some obligation on my part to do it for them. My decision not to have or adopt kids has been a conscious one: I don't want to bear the cost of raising them. I know myself well enough to know that I'd rather use my hard-earned money for fun trips and nice clothes and other things I enjoy. The cost for my self-awareness? Being told that - as a person who chose not to have kids - I get to pay more in taxes than those that do so that I can support the kids for which others are getting a tax break. I do not buy the notion that being part of society "requires taking on the responsibility of helping those less advantaged than you". I pay my own way and ask for nothing. I expect others to do the same. You can call me all the names you want but you can't guilt or shame me into submission.

Congress

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:51:14 GMT

If our system is so good why are:
People going to Canada and Mexico for affordable perscriptions?
47 million people have no medical coverage?
India and Thailand are building hospital wards for the American Medical tourist looking for affordable operations?
Why are our adminstration costs more than double the cost in France? You think it might be the Multi-Million dollar CEO salaries?
Why are American being financially wiped out by medical costs NOT covered by their insurance?
If you think these are good things I question your moral center and ethics.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:53:21 GMT

Then you should work with the billing department from the hospital. Bills are forgiven, either fully of partially, all the time for people that cannot pay.

If people in need of care were being thrown on the street, you'd have every tv/radio/newspaper in Texas covering every case. I just googled "texas uninsured health denied" looking to read story after story of people denied health care. Try none. Lots of stories about universal health care advocates though.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people that complain about how bad the VA hospital is run want the same people to run all of health care.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:38:11 GMT

Lisha Washington (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 6:53 PM)

First of all I want to congratulate you for stating strongly both your case and your opinion of my position. You did so with resorting to slurs and political party posturing. I am always willing to discuss any issue when such rules of civil discourse are followed.

I don't know how there could be any records to be found via Google unless there are independent news articles about specific cases. The reason I say this is that when it happened to me, there was no record created. There were no forms filled out. There was nothing that could be audited. The first question I was asked was do I have insurance. When I said no, they asked what the problem was and, after I described it, they said they were sorry but that they couldn't provide care or service to me. Period.

Actually that was ok with me. I was new to the area and didn't know where to find individual care for this particular problem. I told the hospital, and they confirmed it, that I could pay in cash but that if they didn't think the problem was extreme, I'd prefer a referral to a physician.

I choose not to buy health insurance because the best estimate I could find even though I have no pre-existing conditions was $10K/year. Since I am a very healthy person, I pay in cash for all my wellness care and any odd thing that shows up. However, I am very aware of the risk I am taking if something extreme does befall me.

Also, this item and the discussion is about providing health care at affordable rates to children. I don't know and certainly do not support universal health care. This particular program, however, has been fairly successful.

Again - my point is that we are gonna pay for it sooner or later. It's healthier for the children and cheaper for us if we pay sooner.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:28:04 GMT

Independent, Texas:

Without the depth of the response you provided, I'm pressed for time at the moment, I will say the same to you.

Thank you too for the discussion.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:21:17 GMT

Dale,
Your reply speaks volumes about your value system and the accuracy of my comments. It's great that you get to make fashion statements and go on nice trips. Is this a great country or what? I support you in your decision not to raise a child. You would probably resent having to share your wealth with your progeny. I live in the country and have never required the services of law enforcement. Using your logic I shouldn't have to pay for the service. But then again...it would be nice to have it just in case I need it some day. Maybe you should think about that. I'm happy at this point in your life things are going so great but you may be one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin. I guess I shouldn't have limited my response to those less advataged in society. Being a member of society means contributing to the betterment of all. I don't know you so tell me...Does the federal government subsidize your housing? I would think that someone sooo successful would deduct their mortgage interest. Does the federal government subsidize your retirement savings? On your road to success did you take advantage of subsidized loans? Have you ever taken advantage of public transportation? In a society its kinda hard not being dependent on others. Maybe you need to take a long hard look at how you got to where you are.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:22:46 GMT

Multiple responses.

leon, your neighbors story sounds a bit strange. $35K for tests? One of my neighbors had heart problems, went to the hospital, was admitted with a mild heart attack, spent 2 days in the cardiac unit, and the bill was $7K. They were not insured as they were between jobs. Him and his wife had new jobs, but petitioned the hospital about the expense. It was forgiven.

Certainly everyone has their stories. But is universal coverage run by the government the answer? We see how the VA is run, why does anyone believe something as massive as the health care industry should be run by a centrally located government bureaucracy?

Costs are higher for medications when compared to other countries. CEO pay is not the reason though. The research and development of new medications, tools, testing techniques, and surgical procedures takes years and sometimes decades before it reaches the patient. Patents run out on medications, and then countries like Mexico and Canada can replicate and sell medications without any research or development costs. Pharmaceutical companies bet the ranch that a single drug will carry them through for a decade. If it fails to live up to expectations, they would probably go out of business.

A substantial portion of the 47 million uninsured elect to be so. It is their choice, and they assume the risk by not being covered. Independent Texas is just one of those people. $10K is about correct for what it costs to insure a family ($800 a month). Having the consumer pay for the smaller ticket items, like physicals and much of the preventive care is one way to reduce costs. People or their employers then can purchase policies for catastrophic medical expenses that would be available at substantial discounts to a full policy.

There are problems with the health care system in this county, just as there would be problems with any system that is so large. Having a central government make the decisions on pricing, distribution, level of care, and R&D would be too massive of a job for anyone to tackle. Incremental changes that are reactive to issues within the system are the best way to manage changes to the system. A revolutionary change to universal health care for 380 million people? Daunting.

Recall also that one of the planks proposed for universal care in the early '90s was that you could not opt-out. That means that you couldn't pay for additional and/or better care then what was provided. This meant that if you had a serious health issue, you could not go to the best doctor to correct the problem. If you had a serious heart defect, you would have to go the doctor your plan/region specified. So rather then go the best doctor who had done a procedure hundreds or thousands of times, you would be required to go to someone else who may not be as proficient at treating the problem. Pro-choice is not what universal health is about. The old adage Better/Faster/Cheaper - pick 2 - has never been more true.

Congress

Jerry Springs, Mobile AL — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:48:51 GMT

Geeze Ken, why the angst for Dale? He's elected to live his life the way he chooses. He is not a burden on society, I'm sure he pays his taxes, and he elects to do what he wants. That's so wrong?

Of course Dale, and everyone else, takes advantage of programs run by the government. Police and fire protection are two such items. Dale lives somewhere were there is a school district, so even though he doesn't take direct advantage of the service, it does impact his property value in some way. And Dale pays property taxes just as much as everyone else for a service that he will never directly use.

Just because people like Dale have more expendable income does not mean we can expect more of their money to be sent to the government.

Dale, and others like him, got to the place in their lives because of themselves. They have made decisions that affect their lot in life. More times then not, the government is more in the way of that occuring then it is in helping people.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:44:01 GMT

Jerry,
But you see - he hasn't arrived at where he is on his own. He has benefited from government programs, his station in life, assistance from other, etc. I heve benefited as well. My only point is that we need to get past the notion that if it doesn't affect me personally its not my problem. 47,000,000 people without healthcare is a problem and should be an embarassment to a prosperous nation.

Congress

Lisha Washington — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:35:59 GMT

Ken, nobody arrives anywhere on their own. But to imply the government is the core reason that people are successful is just not true. Again, Dale pays his taxes to federal, state, and local governments, just like anyone else. He uses or does not use government services as he needs them, just like anyone else.

To extrapolate that health care is a problem because people won't support (pay for) universal health care is quite a leap of faith. And to imply that people are obligated to pay more for it because they have additional disposable income is yet another leap. The notion of universal health care being a utopia is just that, a notion. It too would have major issues, failings, and problems, especially for a country the size of the US. Innovation will certainly take a major set back without an incentive based and distributed system to drive progress.

Your statement that it is an embarrassment that 47 million do not have health care is legitimate. The solution to the problem though is much more complex then having the government manage the problem.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:20:28 GMT

Lisha,
You bet. Why would I want a not-for-profit entity like the government managing the healthcare crisis? It is much better to have profit driven corporations making these decisions. You seem to think that the invisible hand of the market place will solve this problem. I'm sure it is capable but their solution will not be to our benefit. You have also expanded beyond my original point. He gave the impression that he hasn't needed any help. I just pointed that we have all benefited from government programs, others, station etc. Why do you think I am singling out Dale out to pay more? There was a time when this county believed in shared sacrifice. With universal healthcare my taxes will go up as well. Yes Lisha, it is a complicated problem... to complex for any other entity to handle or solve but the federal government. It's not like there aren't plenty of examples out there that we couldn't evaluate and come up with a decent plan of our own. You speak as 12% of the population is quaint little number. $10,000 a managable amount to pay for the working poor. Where are you coming from?

Congress

Lisha Washington — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:00:32 GMT

We still believe in shared sacrifice. Each of our total tax bills, depending on our stations in life, are fairly significant.

You're proposing to significantly increase in the tax burden (shared sacrifice) by implementing a universal health plan, and seem to imply we're heartlesss if we don't. This is a plan that carries as many, if not more problems then the current system we have implemented. And you're tagging it as progress.

12% of the population is not a "quaint little number". It also is not justification to rebuild the entire system.

"to complex for any other entity to handle or solve but the federal government. "

Here is where we differ. What significant problem has the government solved on this order? The so called "War of Poverty"? Still exists after how many trillions of dollars (aka, shared sacrifice) spent? The poverty line really hasn't moved much the last 40 years. Our federal government cannot even manage immigration, a significant problem, but less of a complex issue then health care. VA hospitals are not a shining example of successes either.

You put greater faith in government bureaucrats then I do. Innovation is not what they produce. They produce compromises that many times do not benefit those that they intend to serve. More power in so few hands, that have not shown they know how to use it, is not a receipe for improvement.

I respect your opinion. Many share it. I just don't agree with it.

Regarding your comments on Dale, I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent.

Congress

ken mesle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:46:32 GMT

Lisha,
So managed healthcare is not bureaucratic? We have registered nurses evaluating medical charts and overruling doctors regarding prescribed treatment. Yep, sure sounds like the best healthcare system in the world to me. Try #37. We have such great innovation though. Remember the bird flu scare? That wasn’t so long ago. Since there isn’t any money in vaccines, we had to run out and try to purchase it from Great Britain. Yea, profit driven healthcare is far more beneficial to the patient. There was a time, before Reagan and the conservative agenda, when the government did a pretty good job regulating industries and such. But then we fell for the line, “Regulation bad; deregulation good. Regulated companies were rewarding for reinvesting in their infrastructure. Now to drive up profits you have energy companies that won’t even trim trees around power lines. We are approaching third world quality in our power grid. Thank God we can still purchase power from Canada. I know this going back but our interstate highway system, the Marshall plan, the containment of the Soviet Union and our postal system. I think those are some pretty good examples of what the government has done right. Hey how about our military? Government serving the people is a good thing. And that’s my encouraging word to you Lisha.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:40:37 GMT

One little note: The federal government, based on my understanding, does not have the right to mandate universal health care for the country. It is not part of the constitutional privileges or responsibilities accorded to the federal government. What they have been trying to do is fund it. That is a whole different ballgame. Again, some would say that there are constitutional imperatives at risk here.

Regardless of the opinion about the fed's effectiveness in creating and managing a univeral health system, they don't have the right to do so.

Again - they can fund it but requiring that people use it is not possible. Also, the only way they can force medical facilities and practioners to use it is by bribery - they will get the funds if they do and they won't if they don't.

That is why I've been saying I'm against uhc. I do support the funding bill for children as I see that these are 2 different things.

Just thought I'd throw that in. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is just my understanding.

(if this posts twice, I apologize. My computer "blinked" when I first hit the submit button.)

Congress

leon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:59:49 GMT

Lisha,

Perhaps in your part of the world hospitals are more generous than here in Texas or perhaps you actually work for some part of the system in which case I see why you defend it because at Texas hospitals the workers get free health care( nationalized?) at their hospital. Nurses have told me this during my stays.

In any case I sound a might aggitated because as I understand it the "strange" could actually mean lie and I saw the man crying and the bill. We regular working class guys do not have much left but our reputations so that annoys me. Would it sound strange if I also told you that I went for a test at a houston hospital and was told we notice you have a thousand dollar deductible and since we cannot verify how much you have paid on that in order to have your test you must pay the 1000 deductible to us now, cash check or credit card?

These are but a sample of the stories that many fellow Americans face daily. I do not have to make it up because I am 54 years old and have lived it. By the way I cannot see the movie sicko because it is not playing within 100 miles of my house. none of my regular AMC theatres are playing it. Coincidence???

Congress

leon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:13:23 GMT

Ken,
Some folks just won't understand until they are faced with predicaments like mine (colon rectal) until, God forbid, they are faced with thousands in bills and crappy insurance. Once again this insurance was employer mandated not my choice. Just the cheapest they could find. We apparently come from another generation to look after one another, but its not right or wrong, its just their choice. Youth breeds invulnerability, but age has a way of making you see mortality. I do weep for the young and the elderly though.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:06:57 GMT

Amen Leon,
We are all connected. I imagine Lisha is a professional blogger hired by the pharma or insurance
industry. No one can tell me that we don't have the money for social programs including universal health care. If we can spend one trillion dollars destroying a country and inciting a civil war thereby causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands...we can afford to invest in humanity. Take care my friend. My hope for you is that your health condition will improve. Maybe someday adequate healthcare will be considered a right, not a luxury.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:43:25 GMT

Again, I definitely support trying to get good affordable health care for the entire country.

However, this does not fall under the constitutional mandate of the federal government.

We need to start "doing the paperwork" to clean up the way we try to address social issues. We can't just keep using "funding bills" to drive change.

Each state should attack this issue and, then, if 3/4 of the states develop a similar approach, perhaps federal programs or, at least, legal federal funding could be applied via the ammendment process.

In this as in all social initiatives, we keep looking to the federal government to effect change which is not within the constitutional charter for them.

We can't keep doing business this way. We can't keep confusing "good" things to do" with "the wrong way to do things.".

IMHO

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:50:10 GMT

Just curious...Is Social Security and Medicare under your constitutional mandate of the Federal Government?

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:13:52 GMT

Better yet,
Is the federal government constitutionally mandated to bail out large corporations, banking and the savings and loan industry? Is it mandiated to provide flood insurance? Guarantee pensions and savings? Is it mandated to guarantee loans to small businesses and college students? How about farm subsidies? Where do the feds get the right to control the airwaves? Did we ever have the authority to integrate schools? Should the Supreme Court have even ruled on the constitutionality of a Schools integration policy? I know alot of State rights activists want to go back 100's of years, but I'm not buying it.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:40:57 GMT

Ken Mesle (Sent Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:50 AM)

Actually, Ken, I do not see entitlements and some of the other issues you bring as appropriately belonging to the fed level IN THE WAY THEY WERE CREATED. Some of them do - such as the FCC under the commerce act, I think that there is appropriate justification. I do agree that SCOTUS has the right to rule on constitutionality of anything and that, especially, integration was a citizen right being trampled by states. Very appropriate.

Those are examples where the right questions were being asked. I am NOT a state's rights activist. I just want us to work by the rules or change the rules.

Very very intelligent questions, thank so much!

Please keep in mind that I am not saying that I disagree with the goodness of any of the examples you cite (although there are some that I have grave concerns about).

I'm trying to get us to realize that we have been gaming the system all these years by using funding packages to establish societal change or as remedies rather than using the system as designed or changing the design. This is where, sooner or later, the courts will come into play.

This is gonna catch up to us one day.

All that being said, I would really welcome someone with a constitutional law background to address this point (universal health care) and let me know if I've misunderstood.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:51:28 GMT

Independent, Texas
I'm sorry that I jumped to conclusions.

Congress

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:22:16 GMT

To Ken Mesle--To answer your rhetorical questions: no, the Federal government does not have the "right" to bail out corporations, banks, or the S & L industry (although bank bailouts may come slightly closer to being a core function of government than the others, since banking involves the soundness of the money supply). Ditto for flood insurance, education, business and housing loans (except perhaps for veterans). With respect to guaranteeing savings, this is done through the FDIC, a quasi-public entity similar to the Federal Reserve. With respect to pensions, except to the extent that they are guaranteed as in the case of savings, no. Farm subsidies, no. Also no to Social Security, Medicare and any health care plan.

The airwaves are a public commodity, and are leased to broadcasters. And school desegregation was mandated by the Courts based on the 14th Amendment, which requires States (not individuals) to grant "equal protection of the laws" to all citizens of the U.S. Those items do fall under Federal jurisdiction, based on different constitutional mandates.

Many people equate the government's duties with "doing what's good," or "doing what has to be done." That is not how our government ever worked, or is designed to work, or is supposed to work. The Constitution delegates specific limited powers to the national government; all others belong to the States or the people. The States cannot, absent a constitutional amendment, abrogate or default their duties to the national government, and the national government cannot subsume State responsibilities without a constitutional amendment.

If you want to debate, on a constitutional level, the role of a government of limited and delegated powers, then, fine, we can have that debate. It would indeed be fun, even if a bit scary. But to state that "the government must do this" simply because we want, or think we want (or need), "this" (whatever "this" may end up being), is wrong and wrong-headed.

I understand where Independent, TX, is coming from. We've exchanged posts on this before, as well as with others (I think this is the first time we've engaged in a discussion, though). Independent and I are essentially in the same place: we want the government to act as it was meant to, and stop growing itself. We also (I think [and if I'm wrong, Independent, correct me, please]) would like to see people take their problems and concerns to the States, rather than to Washington, since the States have the sovereign power and duty to deal with most of the things that Washington is being asked (wrongly) to be involved in.

Ans as for me, if we're to be subjected to some form of socialized medicine, just give me the right to opt out of the program (and the bill for it). I don't want it, I don't need it, and I can't afford it.

Congress

Independent, Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:54:25 GMT

Wow - a real discussion!! Cool!!

Richard - agree with everything except for, possibly, the part about people taking the problems etc.

Just a small clarification of my position on that point:

I do agree with that but mainly from a process perspective. I don't have any particular ideological position on what is or should be a state responsibility.

I want the Feds to actually state clearly "that isn't part of our constitutionally defined role". I really want the country to start (or resume) working the system as designed.

Part of working that system can be to change the constitution. I'm ok with that. It is the default management by funding bills that I think is so dangerous.

Congress

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:17:42 GMT

Just to clarify a bit: I have no problem with amending the Constitution. I've rewritten it ficve times, and have written (and/or reviewed) any number of draft amendments. That is how constitutional change is supposed to be done.

My gripe is with construing the Constitution into oblivion. You shouldn't interpret it to death just to avoid the difficulty of amending it. As a country, we've been too tolerant of interpretation which negates what the document requires, all in the name of expediency.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:53:11 GMT

Richard,
Then how did we get all those federal programs, initiatives or whatever they're called? Didn't any strict constitutionalist challange this usurpation of state responsibility. Isn't the constitution a document that is open to interpretation? Especially when dealing with healthcare issues and other social programs. 230 years ago I never would have dreamed of having the government pay for my medicinal bleeding at the neighborhood barber shop. Likewise, just because we didn't have the means or desire to create safety nets, at that time, doesn't mean that our society need not evolve. Leaving the big items up to states will only leave us with disparately different levels of support. What are we going to do initiate some sort of revenue sharing like they do in professional sports? Your arguements sounds reasonable... but strictly followed are they workable? Richard, I really do think that there is an element in the conservative base that is hell bent on destroying the federal government's capacity to do anything other than make war and support the military industrial complex. I would hope that you are not part of this faction. What do you have against helping those that are less well off? Like I've said before...ONE TRILLION dollars is not too expensive to wage an unnecessary war, but we can't afford universal healthcare? I just don't get it.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:59:38 GMT

Richard,
You took away one of my questions before my post was printed. Damn! I would ask why are you so concerned with contruing the Consitution into oblivion? I would much rather see it as open to interpretation rather than completely ignored as it has been by this administration.

Congress

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:17:12 GMT

Ken--I'm equally concerned with ignoring the Constitution (and I agree that the current Administration would prefer at times that it wasn't there) as I am with torturous misconstructions. The latter are harder to deal with, though, since they pay ostensive lip service to the text while twisting it and construing it in ways that make the text seem irrelevant, so I guess that's why I come back to them first.

Both are equally pernicious. Both need to be stopped. But both flow from the same conceptual base--the limitations on government activity and power are an inconvenience which must be avoided whenever possible and, if at all possible, made to disappear. Unfortunately, society seems more concerned with the "right result" than with maintaining the Republic we were given.

And that saddens me.

Congress

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:28:46 GMT

Ken--To answer one of your questions, it is difficult to challenge a Federal law or initiative, since the courts routinely deny "standing" to individuals challenging unconstitutional actions unless they've been specifically and substantially injured (the harm to the body politic isn't enough to give standing, unfortunately). And when Social Security was enacted, there were some challenges, but the courts simply reinterpreted Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 to allow it. Once that door was opened, there was no turning back.

There is nothing pernicious, per se, in allowing different approaches to socioeconomic problems on a State-by-State basis. This way, the ideas can be vetted and the best ones implemented. There is also nothing wrong with the States cooperatively adopting a uniform system on a State-by-State basis (as in the case of the UCC).

I am not trying to "destroy" the government's ability to do anything except make war, etc. The Constitution clearly spells out areas that are delegated to the Federal government. Washington is at liberty to deal with those areas. I do not, however, think that everything belongs subject to Washington's uniformity rules. This country was established as a Federal republic of sovereign States which voluntarily surrendered some if their sovereignty for the sake of creating a "unity in diversity." That is more than an ideal--it is a fact. I think it can still work (it did for a long while). But it can't work if Washington continues to insist (and the people continue to insist) that it is the only source of power and action.

The people have become too used to thinking "Washington first." They're not going to change unless Washington starts swaying "No" to them and to itself. It may be painful for it to realize it can't and shouldn't do everything. But it is vitally necessary that it learn and heed that painful lesson.

Congress

Independent,Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:52:58 GMT

This is a great discussion. Have we come to an agreement that, as currently defined, the federal government does not have the authority to mandate a universal health coverage plan and, if they fund one it must be voluntary without penalty, and that such funding is an end-run around the constitution?

I tried to post a note to a more recent thread that has taken up the UHC issue that the discussion was ongoing on this thread but, evidently, the moderators kicked it.

Congress

Ken Mesle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:42:27 GMT

No, I'm not ready to agree. What you have shown me, however, is that I need to research this issue further.